State of the Air War in AE

[witpqs]

janh, I think you are going too far.

Some of the proposals being put forth here look good and I strongly suspect that the developers (in private as they need to) are looking at how certain things would mesh with the code and discussing this 'behind the curtain'.

But it's also really easy to move the weight too far to the other side of the canoe and end up in the same water, and no better off. Modest changes can have big effects, especially if more than one modest change is made.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: janh



What I mean is some sort of overhead, a limit above which efficiency decreases. Yes, 500 men can still handle 500 rifles, but if you want all of them to storm a small complex, that may not be most "force efficient". 50 men perhaps could have achieved, the same, 500 are better, but they are not 10x better.
Think of optimal frontages for a unit, say a division. There is a range where it is efficiently working, then there is too narrow , or too wide. Hope you get what I mean.

Aaah I see, thank you for the clarification.

[frank1970]

Maybe, there are just too many planes in the game.
Is it possible to just eliminate planes as "rubbish" when the plane fatigue hits 100 or so?
Just on the airfield, without loosing the pilot.

[Nikademus]

There is no mechanism in the game for planes to wear out and be written off. Even Bombing the Reich didn't go that route. Not aware of any wargame that ever tried.

[Commander Stormwolf]

AE did a good job to reduce the number of allied planes (especially 4E) to
the correct historical numbers - good job AE team

now it is time to do the same for japanese side..
.. limit the engine expansion to 100 per month..
... make separate HI points for AC and ships

then game is almost perfect [:)]

[frank1970]

Maybe much easier to do:
double the amount of engines needed per plane.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Maybe much easier to do:
double the amount of engines needed per plane.

Ah why not simply double the cost per engine in that case ?

[aztez]

These operational aircraft could be tied down airfield sizes per base:

level 1-3 = Maxium of 30-70 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 4-6 = Maxium of 60-125 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 7-8 = Maxium of 100-200 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 9 = Maxium of 175-300 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.

The maxium numbers tied down aviatiation support available plus weather permitting etc.

Thus you would hardly get those maxium numbers without extraordinary luck.

That should scale down the huge strikes quite a lot and give more historical feel of things.

If the AA adjustments made Da Babes are implemented also (or close to it) than would force quite a diffrent gaming styles.

The game engine should be able to handle such numbers and make it more of naval game too.

You definately could hurt carriers if someone is foolish enough to sail close mutually supporting bases too.

You could also force bombers (torpedo/divebombers included) to remain 1 turn standown orders if transfering lets say 8 hexes or over. That way you cannot just warp planes in and out without preparing for it. Should lower the operational tempo quite a lot too.

[Kull]

This is a very interesting topic, and I applaud the majority for keeping it focused and non-emotional. Just one observation from many years immersed in reading the history of WW2, is that launching massive air strikes (multiple hundreds of planes) against naval targets spotted within a 24-hour time span simply didn't occur in this era. The Marianas battles might be the closest analogy, and even here the LBA Japanese attacks were extremely uncoordinated, with predictable results. As others have noted, what made Okinawa so dangerous to the Allies was the long term presence of the Naval assets just offshore. This allowed the Japanese plenty of time to prepare and coordinate their kamikaze strikes. Accordingly if a player parks a carrier fleet off the Home Islands, they all deserve to sink. But quick in-and-out raids should be almost impossible to counter.

Again, that's real life and we're talking about a game here. But the RL lesson is that coordinating large raids is hard as hell when you are dealing with a known target and have plenty of time to prepare. The coordination penalties should be enormous when you have one day to try and launch attacks against recently spotted Naval assets.

[AcePylut]

Doubling Service factor, doubling AV required, doubling the HI cost, etc. etc. etc.... none of these address *the 2k plane strike*, for even if you double all that, limit number of planes flying from a base based on base level, etc. you still can produce 1 massive 2k plane strike... and if you can do it, it will happen.

I tend to think that the game is actually ok when it comes to Japan's economy. After all, who here plays the "actual" WW2 scenario - Scenario #1 - with PDU *off* ??? If you aren't playing this scenario, then you are truly playing a fantasy game and that’s all that need be said.



The only way to deal with it is to break up the strike into multiple strikes. The way to do that is to increase coordination penalties exponentially when the number of airgroups reach a certain number, so that your 2k plane strike doesn't happen in a single combat in the am/pm phase - but happens in multiple combat actions.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There is no mechanism in the game for planes to wear out and be written off.

...well, planes do get written off as too damaged to repair after missions in AE fairly frequently. I've never counted but I see it.

[Justus2]

ORIGINAL: Kull

This is a very interesting topic, and I applaud the majority for keeping it focused and non-emotional. Just one observation from many years immersed in reading the history of WW2, is that launching massive air strikes (multiple hundreds of planes) against naval targets spotted within a 24-hour time span simply didn't occur in this era. The Marianas battles might be the closest analogy, and even here the LBA Japanese attacks were extremely uncoordinated, with predictable results. As others have noted, what made Okinawa so dangerous to the Allies was the long term presence of the Naval assets just offshore. This allowed the Japanese plenty of time to prepare and coordinate their kamikaze strikes. Accordingly if a player parks a carrier fleet off the Home Islands, they all deserve to sink. But quick in-and-out raids should be almost impossible to counter.

Again, that's real life and we're talking about a game here. But the RL lesson is that coordinating large raids is hard as hell when you are dealing with a known target and have plenty of time to prepare. The coordination penalties should be enormous when you have one day to try and launch attacks against recently spotted Naval assets.

I think this points to a simple (partial) solution, that seems to be overlooked. It has always seemed strange to me that planes can rebase instantly and still launch strikes the same day. If rebasing used up the plane's 'mission' for the day, so they couldnt strike until the following day, it would make it much harder to mass on short-duration raids. It would also discourage the player from massing their air too quickly, as they would be very succeptible to a deception if they leave another area vulnerable, and couldn't instantly transfer back.

Also, combining this with ops damage for rebasing aircraft and the AV limits being discussed, would really limit the ability to suddenly launch 2,000 aircraft from a base with limited AV support. If realistic AV support was needed to repair the planes damaged on the transfer in, you would have much smaller strikes flying out in the first couple days. Now, if there is sufficient AV support, and the fleet hangs around for a week, then maybe you could build up an alpha strike, but as Kull stated, they would deserve it at that point.

I remember reading recently in an article on USAAF ops in DEI, how some fighter squadrons that tried base-hopping from Australia to Java might be lucky to end up with 3 operational fighters by the last leg. Crashes during transfers or on landing (especially at extended range, into unfamiliar airfields) would render many aircraft unserviceable for extended periods.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: aztez

level 1-3 = Maxium of 30-70 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 4-6 = Maxium of 60-125 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 7-8 = Maxium of 100-200 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 9 = Maxium of 175-300 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.

This is the answer. Simple. Doesn't require rework and more realistic. Flying thousands of aircraft from a single hex, totally coordinated, is what is causing the model to get of whack.

Erik Rutins, I believe, said that beta had reduced airfields and was met with complaints from the fan base. Well, the result is a combat model that can't scale. Reduce the airfields. That affects both sides equally.

[AcePylut]

It won't fix the problem, though.

Consider... the US takes the Phillipines in '44 and builds up all the airbases in northern Phillipine Islands to max level (there's like 10 of them that can reach level 8/9). US decides to take Formosa. Us launches an airstrike against main Japanese base at Taiko (sp?). 3000 aircraft flying from multiple fields go into to Taiko on one coordinated strike, and flatten it... Problem remains.

Consider #2: US moves into range of Japan, and their 100000 level 9 airbases. Japan wipes out US CV fleet with one massive strike flying from multiple fields. Japan is the impregnable fortress in this case - as Japan has the ability to launch the massive raid with ablative escorts, and the US doesn't. "History" is totally turned on it's head.

All this would do would force US players to go through the Phillipines or China to get 10 bases to launch the massive strike.


One thing that we all need to remember is that "if it can be done, it will be done".

[vicberg]

Only if coordination remains as affective as it currently does. So I should amend. Increase coordination penalties along with reducing airfield size. Reduced coordination means less planes hitting target at same time, which works better within current model. Might get lucky and a massive strike gets through, but odds are they will come through from multiple bases on different times throughout the day. Also a bit more realistic and also affects both sides.

Not an ideal solution, but at least that better than the limits currently imposed on the model. IMO, current model Japan is already impregnable, so anything different is better. Plus, we need to be realistic. A rewrite isn't going to happen. So whatever is done has to be within current framework as much as possible.

[gradenko2k]

I agree with AcePylut: Even if we put a hard-cap on the number of planes that can fly from an airbase of a given level, and even if we remove the game mechanic that allows 250 AV to service an unlimited number of planes, there would still be several key points on the map where enough level 9 airfields exist in close enough proximity to create the massive strikes.

I suppose you could try to neuter the amount of flyable planes further, but then you risk swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. That is, to be put in a situation where too few aircraft can fly from a level 9 airbase than would be historically plausible.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: witpqs



...well, planes do get written off as too damaged to repair after missions in AE fairly frequently. I've never counted but I see it.

op losses have always been a part of the game. I was referring to write offs due specifically to an airframe wearing out. In real life aging airframes that had been used once too often harshly were often retired or reduced to scrap. In the Pacific worn out B-17's ended their days as transports or operating in quiet Theaters. In WitP as in other games, a plane stays active, in peak condition for its entire "service life" Only thing that ends its existence is loss by combat or a die roll op loss due to crashing from damage/weather/Zeus etc.

[Terminus]

That's another source of whining that doesn't need to be tapped.

[vicberg]

To frame this discussion, you have to get realistic. There isn't going to be a rewrite of the air combat model for a PATCH. They may do it for the next release of the game, because they can make money from it. For a patch, no. So discussions about air frame life, etc., are out of scope for this discussion.

Increase coordination penalties and Japan's 10 or 20 airfields will be a crap shoot. Yes, there may a 1 in 100 chance that they all coordinate, but otherwise, groups will come into battle at different times thereby reducing or removing the hard coded limits currently in the model. 20 allied carriers off Japan, hopefully in different CarDivs will have a pretty good chance to form effective CAP, since they are all in the same hex or adjoining hexes, and may provide a pretty good chance to at least do serious damage to the incoming squadrons. Same with Allies trying to build up 10 level 9 airfields in PI to smash Formosa. Eventually, it will happen since Formosa doesn't have 10 airfields, but there will be losses by the allies because they won't coordinate as well. IMO, balanced. Of course, both sides can put up LRCAP against a base or whatever and increase the cap levels. Coordination and airfield size, IMO is the problem.

Slows the game down a bit also, which is good.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I suppose you could try to neuter the amount of flyable planes further, but then you risk swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. That is, to be put in a situation where too few aircraft can fly from a level 9 airbase than would be historically plausible.

Current model is broken anyway at end game. Nothing to lose, quite frankly. BTW, does anyone really KNOW how many airplanes launched from the largest airfields in the pacific? I certainly would like to know that.